Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreA landlady (deserted by her husband, with an unemployed adult son and no independent income) sued to evict her tenant, saying she needed the rented shop premises so her son could start a business to support the family. The trial court accepted this and decreed eviction in her favour, but the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, both a Single Judge and then a Division Bench on intra-court appeal, reversed this, holding the requirement unproved mainly because the son himself had not been examined as a witness. The landlady then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the key legal question was whether the landlord's requirement under Section 11(1)(h) of the J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 was genuine, not merely the fact that the premises would actually be used by her son. Relying on its own precedents (including Bega Begum, Joginder Pal, and others), the Court reaffirmed that "own occupation" is to be read liberally to include use by family members economically dependent on the landlord, and that failing to put the family member himself in the witness box is not, by itself, fatal if the need is otherwise proved on the evidence. Finding that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence of genuine need (the landlady's desertion, lack of income, and her son's unemployment), the Supreme Court held the High Court had wrongly reopened a sound finding of fact. It allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgments, and restored the trial court's eviction decree, giving the tenant three months to hand over vacant possession.
A landlord seeking eviction for "own occupation" can rely on a genuine need to accommodate a dependent family member's livelihood (such as a child's business), and does not automatically lose the case just because that family member didn't personally testify: courts will look at the whole body of evidence to decide if the need is real rather than a mere pretext.
